snow wrote:
[This is a rebuttal to a misguided news article.]
Cypher-Censored By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)
[snip, snip]
Notice how, once the opposition is admitted to, the rationalization begins. Suddenly this is not a matter of censorship, but of ownership. Just as suddenly, the classic anti-free-speech arguments of "if you don't like it, start yer own" begin to surface. (Anyone ever notice how this resembles the "love it or leave it" mentality of certain American patriotic organizations?)
It still isn't censorship. Censorship, at least in my dictionary, refers to censor, which uses the word "Official" several times. Mr. Gilmore is not an "Official" in a government sense, he maybe in the EFF sense, but this is not an "Official" EFF organ, so that doesn't count.
We *are* talking about the cypherpunks list, yes? Then, in terms of the list, John Gilmore *is* the official, hence a censor, plying his skills. Why all the denial and repeated (redundant) blathering about John's *right* to something he allegedly owns? Simple. The folks who put this stuff out want desperately to believe that this list they spend so much time on is "really OK", and not a censored medium. Denial is the key.